Oh, please...our fears about Iran wanting to nuke us are pure paranoia, borne of our own decades long perfidy toward them.

There's no evidence at this time that Iran has a nuke or is developing a nuke. If they did develop a nuke there's no reason to think they would have intent to launch it at us. To the degree Iran may have a desire to develop a nuke, (or even be covertly working toward that end), it is more logical to assume their intent is to have a deterrent against being attacked by Israel.

Rocket programs certainly have a way of filling rocket payloads with either life or death. Wernher von Braun successfully played that dichotomy and based his some decisions on religion or at least residual faith:

We knew that we had created a new means of warfare, and the question as to what nation, to what victorious nation we were willing to entrust this brainchild of ours was a moral decision more than anything else. We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured.

"We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured."

Sounds like a grateful employee kissing ass to the country that could have tried him for his participation in the Nazi war machine but who instead brought him over here and paid him to continue his R & D of rocketry.

"1) Iran would most certainly nuke us if they thought they could do it and get away with it."

Why do you believe they have any desire to attack us?

Even assuming a previously undisplayed desire by Iran to harm us, they know they could not "get away with it." We are bristling with nukes. If they fired off a nuke at us, they know we would obliterate them.

"2) Iran will definitely nuke Israel as soon as they have the ability to do so."

"Definitely?" You are privy to inside information?

Even assuming for argument's sake they did wish to attack Israel, Iran knows that not only would America would respond to such an attack by obliterating them, but that Israel is also bristling with nukes and would respond by hitting Iran with their nukes.

Even assuming for argument's sake they did wish to attack Israel, Iran knows that not only would America would respond to such an attack by obliterating them, but that Israel is also bristling with nukes and would respond by hitting Iran with their nukes.

"Why do you always think that violent conflict can be wished away by absolving one side and blaming another?"

I'm doing neither; I'm looking at the reality clearly, rather than through the prism of hostile anti-Iran propaganda that informs virtually all public discussion about them.

Aside from the question of Iran's intentions--which are not demonstrably or provably hostile toward us--they know we could wipe them out if they launched a nuke or assisted in the detonation of a nuke by other means. Again, aside from all the propaganda about Iran being a bunch of suicidal crazies, they have demonstrated themselves to be rational actors, and they would not take action that would result in their own complete obliteration.

"Have you ever considered that the self-interests of Iran and the U.S. really are diametrically imposed and that the conflict is, to use an odd word, natural?"

Why are our interests and theirs diametrically opposed? (Even assuming this were true, it doesn't remove the first point, above: they are rational and will not act suicidally.)

But beyond that, they invaded US sovereign territory and took US citizens hostage for over a year. It wasn't until a president was elected that they feared would treat that like the act of war it was were those hostages released. This event, and others have never been reconciled.

When a country commits to war with your country, it is customary to refer to that country as the "enemy." Thus Iran, who have been in a cold - and sometimes hot - war with since 1980, is the enemy.

Are you really this stupid? Never mind. You're a commie. That answers that question.

Yesterday we had an interesting discussion about adaptation which might be apt with regard to the bomb.

please don't rehash the question of whether Iran is developing the bomb or not, whether the predictions of how many centrifuges they have are correct, and so forth. Assume for the purposes of this discussion that the predictions are correct, that Iran will become like Pakistan by midcentury.

Again.. its not about whether we have Israel's back or not... its about what are we doing now to mitigate and safeguard a potential catastrophe down the line.

Its not like we don't know how war starts... if we cant prevent them from getting the nuclear triggers... we might be able to prevent them from even contemplating its use... and not let them slip into isolation.

Again, aside from all the propaganda about Iran being a bunch of suicidal crazies, they have demonstrated themselves to be rational actors, and they would not take action that would result in their own complete obliteration.

They have demonstrated themselves to be rational actors? Perhaps you don't remember the madness of the Iran v. Iraq war. Or the morality police patrolling the streets and beating up unveiled women.

I think the area of disagreement is precisely the point you touched on... your assumption that the leaders of Iran are rational actors. Your assumption that an entire nation cannot be taken over by suicidal crazies is debatable, too.

The events from 1979 were blowback from our actions in the 50s when we helped overthrow their democratically elected President in aid of British Petroleum. We helped re-install the Shah in his place, who was a dictator hated by his people.

He was overthrown by the Iranians after nearly 30 years rule and fled to America at President Carter's invitation. They demanded we return him to be tried for crimes against the people. Our refusal to do this incited the takeover of the American Embassy.

From our ahistorical perspective that seemed an unprovoked and irrational act of hostility; from their point of view, they were acting in protest of our shielding their dictator from being punished.

If an American Hitler were to take power here and reign for 30 years, and then, when overthrown, he fled to safety in another country, (the country that helped install him to power in the first place), don't you think we would demand his return, and would be outraged at the country giving him safe haven?

In the events of 1979, the Iranians didn't kill or harm the American hostages, by the way.

From our ahistorical perspective that seemed an unprovoked and irrational act of hostility; from their point of view, they were acting in protest of our shielding their dictator from being punished.

I haven't looked this from an "ahistorical perspective." I'm well aware of the history of conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

The lefty explanation, which is that the U.S. is always interfering, has some merit, but it's just one side of the story.

The U.S. was fighting with the Soviet Union and Germany over the oil reserves in Iran. The conflict also goes back even further in history. Would you have preferred the Nazis or the Soviets to commandeer Iran's oil reserves?

Your attempts to simplify this into a narrative of the Great Satan are just wrong.

"...they invaded US sovereign territory and took US citizens hostage for over a year. It wasn't until a president was elected that they feared would treat that like the act of war it was were those hostages released."

Rather, Reagan's people contacted Iran prior to the election and arranged to have Iran not release the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated. In payback, the Reagan administration began trading with Iran, providing them with weapons and also unlocking Iranian assets in American banks.

It was a quid pro quo, not "fear" of a real man in the office that brought about the release of the American hostages when they were.

"Even assuming for argument's sake they did wish to attack Israel, Iran knows ... that Israel is also bristling with nukes and would respond by hitting Iran with their nukes."

What a relief. Now will you please tell it to the famed moderate Rafsanjani, who assured his people that a single nuclear explosion would mean the end of Israel, whereas the Israeli retaliation would produce only "damages" to the Muslim world?

(Next you'll tell me that in context Rafsanjani was only talking about deterring Israel.)

Your position boils down to, They would never be so crazy. Well, they've done a lot of things that they should never be so crazy as to do.

My own belief is that Iran will get the bomb, and an awful lot of people will die because they did. And you'll turn on a dime from your current position to insisting that we drove them to it.

By the way, a lot of Iranians who resent our role in the overthrow of Mossadegh and our enabling of the Shah's worst excesses and cruelties, do not hate us. You seem to imply that the Iranian regime has no choice. But they've chosen to commit acts of war against us, secure in the knowledge that we won't go to war against them.

"By the way, a lot of Iranians who resent our role in the overthrow of Mossadegh and our enabling of the Shah's worst excesses and cruelties, do not hate us. You seem to imply that the Iranian regime has no choice. But they've chosen to commit acts of war against us, secure in the knowledge that we won't go to war against them."

I don't say Iran hates us; in fact, I'm saying the opposite, that they haven no hostile intent toward us.

Ann is no doubt thinking: "how did he know? What seemed like a random thirty-plus thread digression from Gatsby laid the groundwork for today's Space Monkey" post. Does he know that I know that he knows?"

Well, overrunning our embassy, no matter how justified you may think they were, was an act of war. Holding our people hostage was an act of war.

And teaching Iraqi and Afghan insurgents how to make EFPs was sure as hell an act of war.

If you deny that they did so, you're simply wrong.

If you write one word in defense of the Iranians for killing and helping others to kill American (and allied) military personnel, then you are acknowledging that we are in a de facto, albeit low-level, state of war with Iran, and you are taking their side.

Robert Cook: "Rather, Reagan's people contacted Iran prior to the election and arranged to have Iran not release the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated. In payback, the Reagan administration began trading with Iran, providing them with weapons and also unlocking Iranian assets in American banks"

LOL

This is one of the more fantastical and hilariously ludicrous lies the left has come up with as regards Reagan.

It ranks right up there with "fire can't melt steel" 9/11 truther nonsense.

BTW, I'll bet Cookie still thinks Hiss was innocent and that it was the Nazi's who killed all those Polish officers at Katyn Forest.

So, to sum up cookies position: There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon (LOL) while SIMULTANEOUSLPY claiming that Reagan coordinated the hostage situation with the mullahs of Iran to hurt Carter!!!

The Drill SGT said... Iran's space program may be part of developing a delivery system for a nuclear bomb.

May?

If you can put a warhead into orbit, you have an effective ICBM capable of hitting anywhere in the world.

I worked on military space systems for over 20 years and your statement isn't exactly accurate. Iran has already launched a small (27 KG) satellite. That's too small for a long range ICBM. However, it does show they have developed a rocket capable of sufficient accuracy and velcity to achieve orbit. The velocity required for a long range ICBM is pretty close to orbital velocity. Over time, they can build more powerful rockets.

To make a viable long range missile, they need to increase the payload capacity, improve the accuracy and develop heat shielding for the reentry vehicle. The monkey was launched on a suborbital rocket (never came close to achieving orbit) with incidentally makes for a good way to test heat shielding. They are apparently still a long way from achieving a FOBS or ICBM capability. They can already handle shorter ranges with a reasonable payload. Add a nuclear warhead and they could go for the "scud in a tub" scenario. If they wanted to concentrate on EMP effects, they wouldn't even have to worry about the reentry.

So, Robert, about those explosively formed projectiles.... I'm still wondering whether you'll deny the link between the al Quds force and insurgents to their east and west, in support of your contention that the Iranian regime bears us no hostile intent.

Or whether you'll just argue, Well who can blame them? and explain that they're acting defensively.

i accept your critique, but stand by the point on FOBS. Yeah, they will need to increase payload, etc.

The heat shielding for FOBS is as great as for an ICBM and accuracy can be even more difficult. If your only intent is to deliver a warhead addressed "to whom it may concern" then accuracy isn't as important.

There are technologies in place and active scanning for radioactive materials in shipping containers, but that's all I can say about that. Still, the concern is valid. Launching from a ship at sea is valid as well. The US proved it could be done when the Navy launched a captured V-2 off the deck of an aircraft carrier (Operation Sandy) in 1947.

This unconventional nuclear attack is inevitable. I don't pretend to know who or where, but it's so easy once you have the bomb that doing that to your enemy with a very good chance of nobody being able to prove you did it, will be irresistible. It will be blamed on the will of God. It may not even be against us, but it will happen, and we are the great Satan.

They shouldn't be our enemy, but they do view us as theirs. Or so they say, and repeatedly so. That makes them dangerous.

Why do you believe they have any desire to attack us?

Because they say so. Every once in a while it pays to pay attention when some country says that your country is the "Great Satan" and "must be destroyed."

... they know they could not "get away with it.

(A) Do they? The theocrary that runs the country may believe that we would not counterattack for fear of starting a war with all of Islam.

(B) Do they care? A society that honors suicide bombers and that has, in recent times, formed barely-armed suicide battalions to attack well-armed and well-trained Iraqi army positions may not view nuclear obliteration the way a Westerner would.

(C) Would you bet our life on your analysis? Because you seem prepared to bet the lives of millions of New Yorkers and Washingtonians.

"doing that [unconventionally delivered nuclear attack] to your enemy with a very good chance of nobody being able to prove you did it, will be irresistible."

This is what scares me, because it's where deterrence breaks down.

Say Iran hits us with a nuke delivered by a missile. (Like Robert Cook but for very, very different reasons, I actually think this is highly unlikely.) We would have no doubt where it came from, and we would retaliate massively.

Now suppose one day a port city simply goes up in a blinding flash. Anyone who's read The Sum of All Fears knows that within a day or two, we'll have traced the unconsumed fissile material back to the nuclear reactor that made it (and we have reference samples from every possible one), right? Then we'd retaliate massively, and everyone knows this.

Right. I am of course kidding.

So the question arises, would we respond with nuclear weapons against a country that we were 90% certain was behind the attack? Probably, maybe not. How about 60%?

Now turn this around, as bagoh20 did. For the country planning to launch the attack, the calculus becomes, They'll want to be sure it was us before they retaliate, and they won't be. They can't.

Robert Cook said... In the events of 1979, the Iranians didn't kill or harm the American hostages, by the way.

If keeping someone hostage for a year isn't harm why is kidnapping against the law?

This is just one example of how he's perverted reality. He has a childlike view that if only America did x conflicts wouldn't exist. And he'll pervert reality in whatever ways are necessary to maintain his conclusion.

Even assuming a previously undisplayed desire by Iran to harm us, they know they could not "get away with it." We are bristling with nukes. If they fired off a nuke at us, they know we would obliterate them.

This is patently false. Iran has been confirmed developing ballistic launch systems which are built into the belly of a commercial-type cargo carrier.

The launch assembly is held inside the hull until launch, at which time it is elevated to the upper deck for firing.

There are thousands of such ships operating just off our coast at any given time, day or night. Such a launch platform could be deployed quickly, covertly, and with little, if any, traceable proof back to the country that sponsored it.

Cargo vessels like this are bought and sold every day on the international market. It wouldn't take much to set up multiple dummy organizations/companies in other countries to cover their tracks.

An EMP strike at the east coast in the middle of winter is the most likely scenario as it will cause the most widespread damage and misery.

Rather, Reagan's people contacted Iran prior to the election and arranged to have Iran not release the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated.

Note the differing level of evidence required for Cook to assert something. Iran talks openly about nuclear power, something virtually everyone understands a country with their oil reserves doesn't need. While many people would agree this is not concrete proof, Cook declares it is not even evidence.

Conversely the assertion that Reagan contacted Iran independently and before the election is ahistorical. The Carter administration negotiated with Iran and effectively reached the agreement. Iran is thought to have held out for Reagan to punish Carter for his perceived support of the Shah.

The interesting fact is not that he's wrong. It's that his standards of evidence and proof just happen to be whatever is required to conclude America is at fault.

"Iran's space program may be part of developing a delivery system for a nuclear bomb"

Gee, ya think? My take is they just want to bring the Sword of Allah to the other planets. One thing is for sure, they have only peaceful intentions. Just ask the Obama Administration. Why, Achmydinnerjacket is every bit the secular man. Like Morsi.

The Drill SGT said... Larry J said... There are technologies in place and active scanning for radioactive materials in shipping containers

In the terminal sure. a fraction of 1 % of containers...

at sea in the harbor? a bomb loaded with high density shielding around it, on the lower stack of a container ship?

The lower it is in the ship, the harder it is to activate and employ. Consider the case of the USS Arizona. A documentary I saw a few years ago stated the powder magazine held enough to be roughly equivalent to a small tactical nuke (few kilotons). When the magazine detonated, the force of the explosion actually stretched the ship over 10 feet. Still, it didn't blow up everything in the harbor. A country's first nukes are often in the kiloton yield range because it takes a while to develop good thermonuclear weapons. Unless the capacity were pretty substancial (WAG of 30+ kilotons), I think burying it deep in the bowels of a container ship would overly reduce the damage. It'd still make a god-awful mess but less than desired, I think.

Again, note the discrepancy in standards: When resolving a question in the direction he favors three guys writing an oped is sufficient to reach a conclusion. But the summaries of intelligence services not only are not conclusive, they are not even evidence.

And Mr. Cook trots out the old "The ruling traditionalist-fundamentalist clergy hate us now because the CIA engaged in propaganda against a secular socialist whom the traditionalist-fundamentlist clergy opposed sixty years ago" nonsense about Iran.

I mean, seriously. It's like someone earnestly explaining that the reason Texas's governor doesn't cooperate with Obama is that the Democratic Party didn't nominate Henry Wallace in 1948. You might be able to construct an alternate history where the Democrats nominating Wallace in 1948 prevents Rick Perry from becoming governor, but that doesn't mean the reason Rick Perry now isn't setting up an insurance exchange is that the Democrats nominated Truman.

"the powder magazine [of the USS Arizona] held enough to be roughly equivalent to a small tactical nuke (few kilotons). When the magazine detonated, the force of the explosion actually stretched the ship over 10 feet. Still, it didn't blow up everything in the harbor."

I may well be wrong here. But I think this is one of the cases where a 5kT nuke and 5,000 tons of conventional explosives will have very different effects, because so much of the heat and blast effects of a nuke come down to a tremendous burst of X-rays being absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere around the blast.

My intuitive sense is that the ship's construction isn't going to have nearly the effect on that burst of X-rays that it does on the heat and shockwave of a chemical explosion, and that to the extent that it does, it may just add vaporized or fragmented steel to the carnage.

Quite aside from concerns about the monkey, Iran's space program may be part of developing a delivery system for a nuclear bomb.

Well. Duh!

Big Mike said...Rocketry has nothing to do with developing an atomic weapon. It is tied to delivering an atomic weapon, like to Washington, DC, or New York City

More like Tel Aviv

Unlike N Korea Iran can draw on and pay for Russian expertise. They also have the resources to manufacture and hide multiple delivery systems. But like N Korea they had better make their first shot count because they very likely won't get a second.

All the hard work to make a nuclear bomb has already been done. Now it is just a matter of precise machining and following directions to the letter.Basically about 16 kg of enriched uranium, a bunch of high explosives, and some precise detonators.A little plutonium wouldn't hurt, but that stuff is dangerous.

Yes, and I also recall that before it was over, Iran resorted to clearing minefields by marching children through them. Marching children are quite effective as mine-clearers, so the Iranians were not being irrational. They just have different values than we do.

Little known (by leftists) facts about Iran: It was pressure from the US that forced Russia to abandon its occupation of the northern part of Iran after WWII. This was also interference in Iran's internal affairs.....Iraq would never have initiated a war with Iran if it were still allied with the US. Whatever the value of the Shah's policies, it is hard to imagine that he would have involved Iran in such a long, bloody war.....The Ayatollah settled the war with Saddam on the same terms that were offered years before. Those who died during those last two years died because of the obduracy of the Ayatollah....Persia and Mesopotamia have been having periodic wars for the last four millennia. There might be underlying causes other than American meddling in these past wars.....Shouldn't a leftist criticize Iran for spending more money on rocket programs than on education or flush toilets for its people.

Rather, Reagan's people contacted Iran prior to the election and arranged to have Iran not release the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated. In payback, the Reagan administration began trading with Iran, providing them with weapons and also unlocking Iranian assets in American banks.

There isn't one single shred of evidence that this happened. It's nothing but lefty conjecture still thrown around by those who refuse to look at reality.

It is annoying when conversations here get shanghaied by those mild "all is well, nothing to see here" ObamaRegimeShills like Mr. Cook.

Reasonable minds really don't need to review 20-60 years of US-Iran relations. It is a tawdry, difficult road, yes. Don't waste time schooling Cook, he is just laughing at his success to keep us off point.

Bottom-line, the one he is working so hard for us to avoid: Obama will continue to make all of this worse. Cook's anointed One averted his eyes from the greatest opportunity for a successful, thriving Iran in our lifetimes. In doing so, he sentenced a new generation of the amazing Persian lineage to labor with Islamist legirons on. Shame on this Regime of ours, and those who try to shut us up about it.

Obama heads the KeystoneKops (now with Kerry to help, haha) who are gesticulating everywhere, Mali, Libya, Pakistan, take your pick, wearing themselves out with no results, so cute. . . . while others -- everyone! -- quietly, step by step, build the future.

But now I will not be down. Those Greens, they are still out there (like I, Mr. Obama and Mr. Cook, am still out here), and despite all the bullying, aim to build a different future.

Robt Cook: In the events of 1979, the Iranians didn't kill or harm the American hostages, by the way.

Um, "by the way":"The actual treatment of the hostages was far different from that purported in Iranian propaganda: the hostages described beatings,[56] theft,[57] the fear of bodily harm while being paraded blindfold before a large, angry chanting crowd outside the embassy (Bill Belk and Kathryn Koob),[58] having their hands bound "day and night" for days[59] or even weeks,[60] long periods of solitary confinement[61] and months of being forbidden to speak to one another[62] or stand, walk, and leave their space unless they were going to the bathroom.[63] In particular they felt the threat of trial and execution,[64] as all of the hostages "were threatened repeatedly with execution, and took it seriously".[65] The hostage takers played Russian roulette with their victims.[66]

The most terrifying night for the hostages came on February 5, 1980, when guards in black ski masks rousted the 52 hostages from their sleep and led them blindfolded to other rooms. They were searched after being ordered to strip themselves until they were bare, and to keep their hands up. They were then told to kneel down. "This was the most terrifying moment" as one hostage said. They were still wearing the blindfolds, so naturally, they were terrified even further. One of the hostages later recalled 'It was an embarrassing moment. However, we were too scared to realize it.' The mock execution ended after the guards cocked their weapons and readied them to fire but finally ejected their rounds and told the prisoners to wear their clothes again. The hostages were later told the exercise was "just a joke" and something the guards "had wanted to do". However, this affected a lot of the hostages long after.[67]

Michael Metrinko was kept in solitary confinement for months. On two occasions when he expressed his opinion of Ayatollah Khomeini and he was punished especially severely in relation to the ordinary mistreatment of the hostages—the first time being kept in handcuffs for 24 hours a day for two weeks,[68] and being beaten and kept alone in a freezing cell for two weeks with a diet of bread and water the second time.[69]

One hostage, U.S. Army medic Donald Hohman, went on a hunger strike for several weeks[70] and two hostages are thought to have attempted suicide. Steve Lauterbach became despondent, broke a water glass and slashed his wrists after being locked in a dark basement room of the chancery with his hand tightly bound and aching badly. He was found by guards, rushed to the hospital and patched up.[71] Jerry Miele, an introverted CIA communicator technician, smashed his head into the corner of a door, knocking himself unconscious and cutting a deep gash from which blood poured. "Naturally withdrawn" and looking "ill, old, tired, and vulnerable", Miele had become the butt of his guards' jokes who rigged up a mock electric chair with wires to emphasize the fate that awaited him. After his fellow hostages applied first aid and raised alarm, he was taken to a hospital after a long delay created by the guards.[72]"

If the Americans held captive by the Iranians were beaten and otherwise harmed, I stand corrected. The Iranians responsible for this abuse should be condemned, of course.

That said, the takeover of the embassy was not an irrational, spontaneous act of baseless anti-Americanism; it did have a basis in our long history of interfering in their affairs and, particularly, in providing safe haven for the dictator they had overthrown, a dictator we had been instrumental in installing, and who had been a loyal American asset for decades.

Again, no justification for their treatment of the Americans, but this provides a context for the events.

I have no hatred of the United States; why do you assume this?Because I point out that we are not paragons of virtue, that we fall far short of our self-congratulatory rhetoric?

The only way we can even try to live up to our own standards is to closely monitor and report where we go wrong. It is pointless to point fingers at the abuses of other countries if we ignore the abuses of our own government.

You guys seem rather schizoid: you get all a-flutter that I or others criticize American behavior in the world, and stand up for our "great" we are, "the shining city on the hill," so-called; but then you outdo yourselves in your expressions of hatred for our government as it pertains to its intrusions into the practices and affairs of business concerns or of your freedom to buy armaments.

You guys seem rather schizoid: you get all a-flutter that I or others criticize American behavior in the world, and stand up for our "great" we are, "the shining city on the hill," so-called; but then you outdo yourselves in your expressions of hatred for our government as it pertains to its intrusions into the practices and affairs of business concerns or of your freedom to buy armaments.

Robert, don't confuse my love of America with love of government. They are two entirely seperate things. Only a statist would conflate the two.

Deeper answer? For the same reason Hitler attacked the Jews...create an outside enemy to focus the populace on.

Even assuming a previously undisplayed desire by Iran to harm us, they know they could not "get away with it."

You assume that that matters to Iran. First of all, there is a legitemate reason to doubt the rationality of the Iranian leadership. Secondly, at least part of the Iranian leadership is actively seeking to brong about the apocolypse.

I think this is the source of the problem. Cook thinks being consistent is the goal, but note in his anlaysis there is no reference to being correct. All governments deserve criticism at some point, but most believe it appropriate based on the facts and circumstances in each case. But not Cook: constant criticism is consistency, basing criticism on facts is "schizoid".

I have no hatred of the United States; why do you assume this?

We don't assume this. We deduce it from the fact that you conclude America is at fault based on questionable evidence or outright falsehoods. You also declare those in conflict with America correct even when the evidence to reach such a conclusion is clearly insufficient. When all your errors run a single direction any statistician will tell you there's an underlying cause.

"Isn't it great, Robert, how the post-Shah rulers have returned democracy and freedom to the people we oppressed for so long?"

Well, Mike, it's not so much that we oppressed the Iranians, but that we helped oust their elected President and helped install in his his place a dictator who did oppress them and then we gave him safe haven when he fled Iran.

What came after with the Iranian revolution was the doing of the Iranians, for good and ill. That an authoritarian theocracy (redudancy) came to power is a consequence of our having placed the Shah in power to begin with. The present state of Iran is a direct result of our interference in their affairs 60 years ago. Had we left Iran alone in the 50s, who knows how the country would have developed?

@Cookie, when I read what you just wrote about not being a communist of any kind, I was so grateful not to be drinking a cup of coffee. I'm sure the coffee would have spurted out of my nostrils for about five feet, give or take an inch or two.

Aside from the pointless posts educating cookie on events 30 years back...

The problem is real. Iran will have the ability to do a missle delivered nuke attack that can kill millions in a few years. They already have missiles that can deliver a nuke weapon they develop to most the ME and NATO area. The lack of a true ICBM so far is only relevant to those living on a different continent.

Yet the public is profoundly sick of endless war. The Neocons fucked themselves in miring us down in two wars of nation building and adventure we lost.So now most people want war only in America's vital interest. No more "we owe it to the Noble Malians and Israelis and Syrians" and such to die for them and bleed more treasure we don't have.

It is a quandary.About the only thing that makes sense is to get all the major powers to agree that a nuke-free Middle East must be made to happen, including stripping Israel of it's WMD in retirn for some security guarantee.Otherwise, an Iranian nuke will lead to the Saudis/UAE starting a nuke weapons program, Turkey, Egypt too.

Because they manufactured improved IEDs and sent those and Quds force trained bombers into Iraq to kill American, British, and Iraqi forces. And there is that embassy hostage issue. Does this help explain?

Because they manufactured improved IEDs and sent those and Quds force trained bombers into Iraq to kill American, British, and Iraqi forces. And there is that embassy hostage issue. Does this help explain?

"Notice how cookie won't go near his lie about Reagan and cannot yet discern a "clever" way to handle his clear (feigned?) ignorance of how American hostages were treated by their Iranian captors."

No, Drago...I was just away from the computer...you know, busy with other things.

I do believe Reagan's people conspired with the Iranians to delay release of the hostages. I admit there is no iron-clad, "bullet-proof evidence" (to quote Donald Rumsfeld on his lies about Iraq's WMDs), but the allegations are compelling, and the timing of the hostage release is too odd to have been coincidence. (And assertions the release was in reaction to Iran's "fear" of Iran is even more ludicrous than the "crazy" theory that Reagan conspired with Iran.) The subsequent dealings between Iran and the Reagan administration ("Iran-Contra") gives further strength to the notion the two parties were and had been cooperative partners for reasons of mutual self-interest. Hey, it's not as if America has never conspired with vile characters when it suited our interests, you know? In fact, that's essentially foreign relations in a nutshell.

As for my lack of awareness of the abuse of the hostages, those events were over three decades ago and my prime memory is only that all the hostages returned home alive. If I ever knew at the time the extent of the abuse they suffered, I certainly had forgot, and I had not refreshed my memory by reviewing available information about the matter. My bad, no doubt.

I do believe Reagan's people conspired with the Iranians to delay release of the hostages. I admit there is no iron-clad, "bullet-proof evidence" (to quote Donald Rumsfeld on his lies about Iraq's WMDs), but the allegations are compelling,

Just another truther.

ask again: why is Iran our enemy?

Nice try. Nobody said Iran was our enemy. Iran has said on more than one occasion that "The Great Satan", America, should be destroyed. They have declared us their enemy.

Comrade Bob. When a gun is pointed at your head always assume it is unloaded.

RC, your profession of ignorance would be merely touching if it were not your invariable disingenuous refuge against truths which demolish your arguments. For someone with pretensions of enlightenment like yours, for you not to recall the hostage crisis, while retailing the feverish lies of Gary Sick, is like not knowing that the world is round while being sure it must be flat because Columbus genocided Indians and Ferdinand & Isabella expelled the Muslims. If the Iranians' memory of 1953 is no better than yours of 1979, why would you think they bear any grudge against us? Few Iranians have living memory of 1979 let alone 1953.

How do you know this? And who says a "living memory" is necessary? Hell, there are people living in the American south today--none of whom, of course, were alive during the era of the Civil War, who still hold a grudge against the north for that (as they perceive it) rape and pillage of their society.

"And Cedarford, why don't we just strip Iran of its WMD, wouldn't that be easier? If not, why not?"

On what basis would "we" (is that "we"--America, or "we"--the UN?) strip Iran of any weapons? Assuming they have any weapons we think they should not have, and assuming there is a legal basis to invade them in order to strip them of those weapons--as that is what it would require--what makes you think it be easy? Look at the disasters the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions turned into; Iran is a larger, better armed nation and would surely put up a more vigorous defense against our invasion than did Iraq and Afghanistan, (the latter whom we are still unable to "conquer.")

Nice cherry picking, RC. Shall I just assume you concede all other points? Very well then. Please pay attention while you are being schooled.

1) the demographics of Iran skew extremely young. I don't remember precisely, and it is always unrewarding to look stuff up for you, but some astonishing proportion of the Iranian population is under 30. I believe a clear majority, and it may be younger than that.

Additionally, one doesn't remember world or national political events at the age of, say, three. So a clear majority of Iranians can have no viable personal memory or knowledge of the revolution. Have never known anything but the mullahs. They may be well inculcated with regime propaganda, (as you seem to believe we are), but have no independent view of the truth from their own experience.

And in any case this would chiefly immunize them against guilt at their treatment of us. For them to have their own recall of 1953 they would have to be 60 to have been alive then, let alone aware. I don't know what you know about Iran, but it is not cram full of 60 year olds, although many of them will be in the gerontocratic ruling clique, of course.

This is of course passing over the whole question of the respective merits of Mossadegh, who of course was a Soviet patsy, and was PM by the way not President, and Pahlavi, among whose sins was modernization, westernization, and the liberation of women.

Meanwhile, as clearly shown, you don't seem to have the memories of their offenses against us, having been alive and adult in the period. No cultural insulation has sufficed against your invincible ignorance. Are you saying the Iranian peasants (or our own Reb-loving hicks for that matter) are smarter than you?

Cook, whatever qualities you possess seem to be focused on enabling you to ignore what is right under your nose. I bet you cling bitterly to the title of intellectual, and I'm sure that as far as Orwell's characterization are concerned, you've earned it.

And RC, I was taking to Cedarford, not you. C4 doesn't care about laws or what is right, so I didn't treat such issues. Only the math that it must be harder to disarm a nation with hundreds of nuclear weapons than a nation with few or none. Is that not perfectly obvious to you?

As for the difficulty in disarming Iran of WMD, if that's all we want, we just bomb the shit out of the relevant sites. This has all been computed. For Israel it would take an all-out effort and be right on the margin of their capabilities, but for the USAF/USN, it's a phone call and ticking off the DMPIs.

Also, Cook, if you do not agree that at least part of the Union's treatment, if not the strategy and indeed the war aims, of the South did not involve terror and rapine, pillage, slaughter and generational subjugation, you are not an moment man.

If, however, you concede that this in some measure, or in the balance, was a necessary evil, then what is your raison d'etre for crapping on 20th century US foreign policy? Isn't it the purest, clearest hypocrisy on your part?

By the way, Cookie, coming to the answer to the question I asked Cedarford is that he hates the Jews and prefers Iran, the Muslims or anyone willing to slaughter and obliterate the Jewish nation to satisfy his base desires, after which they can all die in what manner seems best to them. Also he knows that Israel is more easily reasoned with, for his values of reason, than Iran.

"Only the math that it must be harder to disarm a nation with hundreds of nuclear weapons than a nation with few or none. Is that not perfectly obvious to you?"

Given our difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Viet Nam), it is no "easy" matter to go to war against any nation, even non-nuclear ones, and it is the easy assumption this would be so--even relatively--has led (among other reasons) to our disastrous wars in these arenas.

Besides, what right do we have in deciding we should disarm another nation of its weapons, nuke or otherwise?

(Frankly, I think all nations should destroy all their nukes, as this is surely a death sentence for humankind of the "it's not if but when" variety, but this will not happen.)

"Also, Cook, if you do not agree that at least part of the Union's treatment, if not the strategy and indeed the war aims, of the South did not involve terror and rapine, pillage, slaughter and generational subjugation, you are not an moment man."

Of course it did. Did I suggest otherwise? I merely pointed out that many in the South today--none of whom were alive at the time to provide them "living memory" of the war--still hold powerful, personal grudges against the North for the war.)

"If, however, you concede that this in some measure, or in the balance, was a necessary evil, then what is your raison d'etre for crapping on 20th century US foreign policy? Isn't it the purest, clearest hypocrisy on your part?"

I don't concede it was a "necessary" evil. Even accepting, for argument's sake, that it was, this has no bearing on 20th Century foreign policy. Aside from the arguable instance of WWII, ("arguable" because some argue it), no war we have fought in the 20th Century or the 21st Century has been necessary. In all wars atrocities will occur, as this is the nature of unleashing the hounds of war. It is for this reason that war should only be fought as a defense against an otherwise unavoidable existential threat. When making decisions to go to war for reasons of geopolitical gamesmanship or resource acquisition, when going to war by choice rather than necessity, the aggressive party is wholly culpable for the crimes of such atrocities.

(I don't, by the way, see myself as any sort of intellectual, but merely a concerned citizen. I should hope this is true of most of us.)

On ease of war: Libya went pretty smoothly and probably would have more so had we led from the front. Not that I agree with that action, but we did achieve our aim pretty directly. Oh, there may be or may have been blowback, unintended consequences, and so forth: but as in Bosnia and Kosovo, war aims were achieved with zero casualties.

Maybe if we bomb a few hundred or a few thousand targets in Iran and destroy their entire ability to make war, in another generation or three some revanchist Persian biology genius will mix up the Omega Virus and kill/sterilize/zombify us all, but so far the Japs haven't, and anyway someone like bill ayers or these people in New York recently or you, might do that anyway with no provocation whatsoever.

More realistically, tweaking the balance of power could lead to Russian adventurism or whatever, but what can you do? Again, the Russians don't need to be dragged into adventurism.

So I don't fancy putting a million men into Iran, no; but it is unnecessary. (Note that doing Iraq and AF would have made this much easier had Obama not thrown away our advantages.) We can achieve our objectives by bombing, if we choose.

On the war of northern antislaveric aggression: hey Charlie, pick a side, then I'll go forward with you. You're dancing again.

"by the way, I'm not sure why you don't think that geopolitical gamesmanship and resource acquisition are necessary."

They may be, but they are not reasons to go to war. We live on the world together...if we go to war to steal resources from others, we commit at least two crimes: murder and theft, in pursuit of gain for ourselves at expense of someone else. If we try to work cooperatively and to husband available resources among all parties, we are acting both ethically and in purpose of advancing our own interests and the interests of everyone else.

Perhaps this has not been the way of humankind, but it does not mean it cannot be. With our brutally destructive technologies, as well as the shrinking globe (and its available resources) relative to the expanding world population, we cannot afford to continue to act aggressively and acquisitively as has been humankind's way.

Robert, I do believe that if you spent a day in a maternity ward watching women give birth, you would outlaw unprotected sex. literally, who are you to stop history? this is what life is. Find me the decade, the century in recorded history that you want to live in. Show us how its done, Robert.

We can't continue to live and act as we have in the past. Our world has grown too small, our resources overtaxed, our environment overburdened, our technology too powerful and loosed from our control...we face catastrophe if we continue on as in the past.

We must begin to live up to the best (or at least the better) parts of our nature; we must live and act as if we actually believe all the stirring rhetoric of our statesmen, philosophers, theologians and holy men; we must see each other as truly interdependent with each other--worldwide--and dependent on each other; we must act in concert to improve the conditions in which all humans live or we will die or live in misery and privation together.

Even as say this I know it won't happen, perhaps it can't happen given that our technology has outpaced our primitive intellects and that all superficialities aside, we are as ruled by our lizard brains and crude emotions of hate, fear, and avarice as our earliest forebears. I expect pretty much the worst.

The world is exactly the same size as it was at its formation several bullion years ago and is, within a few hundred tons of space junk out of IIRC 6e24 tons, the same mass. The third planet from the sun is 8000 miles in diameter and at present we scratch its surface to get our resources no deeper than a mile or two at the utmost. With advances in nuclear power, we will have tunneling machines a thousand feet on a side that can root around and chew up and spit out all the ores we need. Ultimately with nuclear power, or any other source such as space collected solar, we can make our own petrochemicals out of carbon and water. We are where out of resources. Nor of space; the earth's population will fit comfortably within the borders of Texas.

Meanwhile you are a devout atheist and can only regard theologians and holy men as shit sandwich salesmen. So you want us all to buy and eat shit sandwiches. That's not very nice. I don't want to be interdependent on shit sandwich salesmen or even cooks.

Look, I just bought two bags of unicorn poop on Amazon, so there must be unicorns. Maybe you're right about this unicorn world you want us to inhabit. Please show it to us. Is there a book we van read or shall we just follow you?

This does not mean that the teachings of the world's major (and minor) religions do not offer valuable guides to living and behaving. In fact, they do.

What fucks it up is humankind's propensity for being literal and dogmatic: for turning suggestions and guidelines on how to best live with one's fellow humans into rigid laws which must be obeyed and must not be deviated from on pain of punishment; and perceives metaphoric expressions of the transformation of one's consciousness and of one's behavior toward others as literal descriptions of magic and miracles performed by God/Allah/Jehovah, et al.

(As, for example, your apparent literalization of my remarks that the world is becoming smaller. Of course, I say apparent because I'm very sure you know exactly what I mean.)

low hanging fruit, Bob. I went for the easy lay up this time. frankly it's your fault, because when I write long detailed multipoint responses you don't cover it all but just pick the 1 thing you think you can survive and speak to that. In all seriousness what does the world is getting smaller mean?